2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)
Part B Indicator Measurement Table
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE
1.
Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school with a regular diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source:
Sampling is not allowed.
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2012 APR, use
data from 2011-2012), and compare the results to the target.
Measurement:
Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
States must report using the adjusted cohort graduation rate
Provide a narrative that describes the conditions youth must meet
required under the ESEA.
in order to graduate with a regular diploma and, if different, the
conditions that youth with IEPs must meet in order to graduate
with a regular diploma. If there is a difference, explain why.
Targets should be the same as the annual graduation rate targets
under Title I of the ESEA.
States may report on one set of Improvement Activities covering
Indicators 1 and 2 in cases where the improvement activities are
the same or overlap.
2.
Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high
school.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source:
Sampling is not allowed.
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under IDEA
section 618.
Use 618 exiting data reported to the Department via EDFacts in
file specification C009.
Measurement:
EDFacts file specifications C009 – Children with Disabilities
(IDEA) Exiting Special Education:
States must report a percentage using the number of youth with
IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping
out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who left
high school (ages 14-21) in the denominator.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/non-xml/c009-80.doc
States should use the definitions specified in EDFacts file
specification 009.
Include in the denominator the following exiting categories: (a)
graduated with a regular high school diploma, (b) received a
certificate, (c) reached maximum age, (d) dropped out, or (e) died.
Do not include in the denominator the number of youths with IEPs
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 1
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
who exited special education due to (a) transferring to regular
education or (b) who moved, but are known to be continuing in
education.
States may report on one set of improvement activities covering
Indicators 1 and 2 in cases where the improvement activities are
the same or overlap.
3. Participation and performance of children with IEPs
on statewide assessments:
A.
Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup
that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that
meet the State’s AYP/AMO targets for the
disability subgroup.
B.
Participation rate for children with IEPs.
C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against
grade level, modified and alternate academic
achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source:
3A (choose either 3A.1 or 3A.2)
States are encouraged to present their APR information in
3A.1 AYP data used for accountability reporting under Title I of
summary tables and include multiple years of data for comparison
the ESEA.
purposes.
3A.2 AMO data used for accountability reporting under Title I
Include information regarding where to find public reports of
of the ESEA as a result of ESEA flexibility.
assessment results, i.e., link to the Web site where results are
reported.
3B. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State
Performance Report (CSPR) reporting on ESEA (EDFacts file
Indicator 3A: The data source and measurement for 3A is
specification N/X081).
dependent on whether the State applied for, and was granted, a
waiver of the requirements to determine Adequate Yearly
3C. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated State
Progress (AYP) for LEAs and schools as part of requesting ESEA
Performance Report (CSPR) reporting on ESEA (EDFacts file
flexibility. States that either did not apply for and receive ESEA
specifications N/X075 and N/X078).
flexibility, or applied for and received that flexibility but did not
Measurement:
apply for a waiver of determining AYP should choose data source
and measurement 3A.1. States with an approved ESEA flexibility
A. (choose either A.1 or A.2)
request that includes a waiver of determining AYP should choose
A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup
data source and measurement 3A.2.
that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s
AYP targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total # Report only on the AYP/AMO assessment targets for
reading/language arts and mathematics proficiency, not targets for
of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the
graduation or other elements of AYP/AMO.
State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.
A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability subgroup
that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet the State’s
AMO targets for the disability subgroup) divided by the (total #
of districts that have a disability subgroup that meets the
State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.
B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the targets. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Indicator 3B: Provide separate reading/language arts and
mathematics participation rates, inclusive of all ESEA grades
assessed (3-8 and high school), for children with IEPs. Account
for ALL children with IEPs, in all grades assessed, including
children not participating in assessments and those not enrolled
for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who
had an IEP at the time of testing.
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 2
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
participating in an assessment) divided by the (total # of children
with IEPs enrolled during the testing window, calculated separately
for reading and math)]. The participation rate is based on all
children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a
full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
Indicator 3C: Proficiency calculations in this APR must result in
proficiency rates for each content area across all ESEA
assessments (combining regular and all alternates) for children
with IEPs, in all grades assessed (3-8 and high school), including
both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those
not enrolled for a full academic year. States are encouraged to
C. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or
report using two rates – one for reading/language arts covering all
above proficient against grade level, modified and alternate
assessed grades and one for mathematics covering all assessed
academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of
grades. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at
children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a
the time of testing.
proficiency level was assigned, and calculated separately for
reading and math)]. The proficiency rate includes both children
with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled
for a full academic year.
4.
Rates of suspension and expulsion:
A. Percent of districts that have a significant
discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and
expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school
year for children with IEPs; and
Data Source:
Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Data collected under section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) (Report of Children with Disabilities Subject to
Disciplinary Removal). Discrepancy can be computed by either
comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with
IEPs to rates for nondisabled children within the LEA or by
comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with
IEPs among LEAs within the State.
Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the
year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2012 APR, use data
from 2011-2012), including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity
to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rates of
long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with IEPs, as
required at 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(22). The State’s examination must
include one of the following comparisons:
B. Percent of districts that have: (a) a significant
discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10
days in a school year for children with IEPs; and
Measurement:
(b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute
A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant discrepancy in
to the significant discrepancy and do not comply
the rates of suspensions and expulsions for greater than 10
with requirements relating to the development and
days in a school year for children with IEPs) divided by the (# of
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
districts in the State)] times 100.
behavioral interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards.
B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy,
by race or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and expulsions
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))
of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs;
and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the
significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use
of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and
procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of districts in the State)]
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)

The rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs
among LEAs within the State; or

The rates of suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs
to nondisabled children within the LEAs.
In the description, specify which method the State used to
determine possible discrepancies and explain what constitutes
those discrepancies. If the State used a minimum “n” size
requirement, report the number of districts excluded from the
calculation as a result of this requirement. States have the option of
using the “total number of districts” OR the “number of districts that
meet the State’s minimum “n” size for one or more racial/ethnic
group” as the denominator in the calculation for B4A or B4B.
For 4A, provide the actual numbers used in the calculation and if
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 3
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
times 100.
Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
significant discrepancies occurred describe how the State
educational agency reviewed and, if appropriate, revised (or
required the affected local educational agency to revise) its policies,
procedures, and practices relating to the development and
implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions
and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that such
policies, procedures, and practices comply with applicable
requirements.
For 4B, provide the following: (a) the number of districts that have a
significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rates of
suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school
year for children with IEPs and (b) the number of districts in which
policies, procedures or practices contribute to the significant
discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the
development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards.
If discrepancies occurred and the district with discrepancies had
policies, procedures or practices that contributed to the significant
discrepancy and that do not comply with requirements relating to
the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards,
describe how the State ensured that such policies, procedures, and
practices were revised to comply with applicable requirements
consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17,
2008.
Targets must be 0% for 4B.
5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21
served:
A.
Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day;
B.
Inside the regular class less than 40% of the
day; and
C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or
homebound/hospital placements.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Data Source:
Data collected under IDEA section 618.
Measurement:
A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular
class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of
students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected on a date
between October 1 and December 1, 2012 and due on February
6, 2013. Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target.
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the
State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, explain.
B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside the regular
class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 4
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in separate schools,
residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements)
divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with
IEPs)] times 100.
6. Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs
attending a:
Data Source:
Data collected under IDEA section 618.
A. Regular early childhood program and receiving
Measurement:
the majority of special education and related services
in the regular early childhood program; and
A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending
a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of
B. Separate special education class, separate
special education and related services in the regular early
school or residential facility.
childhood program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
through 5 with IEPs)] times 100.
For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected on a date
between October 1 and December 1, 2012 and due on February
6, 2013. Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the
State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, explain.
B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending
a separate special education class, separate school or residential
facility) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 through 5 with
IEPs)] times 100.
7.
Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with
IEPs who demonstrate improved:
A.
Positive social-emotional skills (including social
relationships);
B.
Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills
(including early language/communication and
early literacy); and
C.
Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their
needs.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source:
State selected data source.
Measurement:
Outcomes:
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); the targets. States will use the progress categories for each of
the three Outcomes to calculate and report the two Summary
B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early
Statements. States have provided targets for the two Summary
language/communication and early literacy); and
Statements for the three Outcomes (six numbers for targets for
C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
each FFY).
Progress categories for A, B and C:
Report progress data and calculate Summary Statements to
A.
a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve
functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not
improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Sampling of children for assessment is allowed. When
sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling
methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable
estimates. (See General Instructions page 2 for additional
instructions on sampling.)
compare against the six targets. Provide the actual numbers and
percentages for the five reporting categories for each of the three
outcomes.
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 5
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning
but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning
comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool
children who improved functioning but not sufficient to
move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged
peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs
assessed)] times 100.
c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning
to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
= [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a
level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it)
divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)]
times 100.
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining “comparable
to same-aged peers.” If a State is using the ECO Child Outcomes
Summary Form (COSF), then the criteria for defining “comparable
to same-aged peers” has been defined as a child who has been
assigned a scored of 6 or 7 on the COSF.
In addition, list the instruments and procedures used to gather
data for this indicator, including if the State is using the ECO
COSF.
The Early Childhood Outcomes Center has resources to assist
States in submitting their early childhood outcomes data including
a reporting template and a calculator tool for calculating the
summary statements. These tools are available at:
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ECO/
d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning
to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of
preschool children who improved functioning to reach a
level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of
preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning
at a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of
preschool children who maintained functioning at a level
comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of
preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:
Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered
or exited the preschool program below age expectations in each
Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of
growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the
program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = # of preschool children reported in progress category (c)
plus # of preschool children reported in category (d) divided by [#
of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 6
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of
preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of
preschool children reported in progress category (d)] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who
were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the
time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2: Percent = # of
preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus # of
preschool children reported in progress category (e) divided by
[the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories
(a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.
8.
Percent of parents with a child receiving special
Data Source:
education services who report that schools facilitated
State selected data source.
parent involvement as a means of improving services
and results for children with disabilities.
Measurement:
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated
parent involvement as a means of improving services and results
for children with disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent
parents of children with disabilities)] times 100.
Sampling of parents from whom response is requested is
allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the
sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and
reliable estimates. (See General Instructions page 2 for additional
instructions on sampling.)
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target. Include a description of how the State has ensured
that the response data are valid and reliable, including how the
data represent the demographics of the State. Provide the actual
numbers used in the calculation.
If the State is using a separate data collection methodology for
preschool children, the State must provide separate baseline
data, targets, and actual target data or discuss the procedures
used to combine data from school age and preschool surveys in a
manner that is valid and reliable.
If States are using a survey and the survey is revised or a new
survey is adopted, States must submit a copy with the APR.
States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEPfunded parent centers in collecting data and implementing
improvement activities for this indicator.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 7
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation
9. Percent of districts with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special
education and related services that is the result of
inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Data Source:
Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of Children with
Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the
State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate representation
of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related
services was the result of inappropriate identification.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services
that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of
districts in the State)] times 100.
Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.”
Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2012, describe how
the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate
overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services was the result of
inappropriate identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and
300.602(a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies,
practices and procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate
representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and
ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the
district that meet a minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on
the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of
racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services
is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the
determination of inappropriate identification was made after the
end of the FFY 2012 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 2013. If
inappropriate identification is identified, report on corrective actions
taken.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for children aged 6
through 21 served under IDEA. Provide these data for all children
with disabilities.
Provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and
related services and the number of districts identified with
disproportionate representation that is the result of inappropriate
identification.
Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups to reduce the risk of
overlooking potential problems. If a State chooses to use risk
ratios, Westat has developed an electronic spreadsheet that
calculates both weighted and unweighted risk ratios for State and
district-level data. States can request a copy of this file by
sending a message to IDEAdata@westat.com or phoning 1-888819-7024.
Describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate
representation. If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement,
report the number of districts totally excluded from the calculation
as a result of this requirement because the district did not meet
the minimum “n” size for any racial/ethnic group. States have the
option of using the “total number of districts” OR the “number of
districts that meet the State’s minimum “n” size for one or more
racial/ethnic group” as the denominator in the calculation.
Targets must be 0%.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the
previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to
which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one
year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding
the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement
activities completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures,
technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 8
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
that were taken.
States may report on one set of Improvement Activities covering
Indicators 9 and 10 in cases where the improvement activities are
the same or overlap.
States are not required to report on underrepresentation.
10. Percent of districts with disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific
disability categories that is the result of inappropriate
identification.
(21 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Data Source:
Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for children aged 6
through 21 served under IDEA. Provide these data at a minimum
Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of Children with
for children in the following six disability categories: mental
Disabilities Receiving Special Education Under Part B of the
retardation, specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the
speech or language impairments, other health impairments, and
State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate representation
autism. If a State has identified disproportionate representation of
of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories was the
racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories other than
result of inappropriate identification.
these six disability categories, the State must include these data
and report on whether the State determined that the
Measurement:
disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in
Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate representation of
specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate
racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the
identification.
result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in
Provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate
the State)] times 100.
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability
Include State’s definition of “disproportionate representation.”
categories and the number of districts identified with
disproportionate representation that is the result of inappropriate
Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2012, describe how
the State made its annual determination that the disproportionate identification. If the State used a minimum “n” size requirement,
report the number of districts totally excluded from the calculation
overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in
as a result of this requirement because the district did not meet
specific disability categories was the result of inappropriate
identification as required by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., the minimum “n” size for any racial/ethnic group. States have the
option of using the “total number of districts” OR the “number of
using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and
districts that meet the State’s minimum n size for one or more
procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate representation,
racial/ethnic group” as the denominator in the calculation.
analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in
the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate
minimum 'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of
representation of racial and ethnic groups to reduce the risk of
districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and
overlooking potential problems. If a State chooses to use risk
ethnic groups in specific disability categories is the result of
ratios, Westat has developed an electronic spreadsheet that
inappropriate identification, even if the determination of
calculates both weighted and unweighted risk ratios for State and
inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY
district-level data. States can request a copy of this file by sending
2012, i.e., after June 30, 2013. If inappropriate identification is
a message to IDEAdata@westat.com or phoning 1-888-819-7024.
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 9
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
identified, report on corrective actions taken.
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate
representation.
Targets must be 0%.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the
previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to
which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one
year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding
the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement
activities completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures,
technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions
that were taken.
States may report on one set of improvement activities covering
Indicators 9 and 10 in cases where the improvement activities are
the same or overlap.
States are not required to report on underrepresentation.
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B
Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find
11. Percent of children who were evaluated within 60
days of receiving parental consent for initial
evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe
within which the evaluation must be conducted,
within that timeframe.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system and
must be based on actual, not an average, number of days.
Indicate if the State has established a timeline and, if so, what is
the State’s timeline for initial evaluations.
Measurement:
a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was
received.
b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60
days (or State-established timeline).
Account for children included in a but not included in b. Indicate
the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to
select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database,
include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if
data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures
used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in
the calculation.
Note that under 34 CFR §300.301(d) the timeframe set for initial
evaluation does not apply to a public agency if: (1) The parent of
a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the
evaluation; or (2) A child enrolls in a school of another public
agency after the timeframe for initial evaluations has begun, and
prior to a determination by the child’s previous public agency as to
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 10
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
completed and any reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
whether the child is a child with a disability. States should not
report these exceptions in either the numerator (b) or denominator
(a). If the State established timeframe provides for exceptions
through State regulation or policy, describe cases falling within
those exceptions and include in b.
Targets must be 100%.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the
previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to
which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than
one year after identification). In addition, provide information
regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance,
improvement activities completed (e.g., review of policies and
procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any
enforcement actions that were taken.
Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
12. Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3,
who are found eligible for Part B, and who have an
IEP developed and implemented by their third
birthdays.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.
Measurement:
a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to
Part B for Part B eligibility determination.
b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose
eligibility was determined prior to their third birthdays.
c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and
implemented by their third birthdays.
d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide consent
caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom
exceptions under 34 CFR §300.301(d) applied.
e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention
services under Part C less than 90 days before their third
birthdays.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to
select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database,
include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if
data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures
used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in
the calculation.
Targets must be 100%.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the
previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to
which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than
one year after identification). In addition, provide information
regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance,
improvement activities completed (e.g., review of policies and
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 11
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Account for children included in a but not included in b, c, d or e.
procedures, technical assistance, training, etc.) and any
Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility enforcement actions that were taken.
was determined and the IEP developed and the reasons for the
delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100.
13. Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with
an IEP that includes appropriate measurable
postsecondary goals that are annually updated and
based upon an age appropriate transition
assessment, transition services, including courses of
study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet
those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals
related to the student’s transition services needs.
There also must be evidence that the student was
invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition
services are to be discussed and evidence that, if
appropriate, a representative of any participating
agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the
prior consent of the parent or student who has
reached the age of majority.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP
that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are
annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition
assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that
will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary
goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition
services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was
invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to
be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of
any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with
the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age
of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and
above)] times 100.
14. Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary
Data Source:
school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school,
State selected data source.
and were:
Measurement:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of
leaving high school.
A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no
longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively
school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of
employed within one year of leaving high school.
leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other
no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time
postsecondary education or training program; or
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to
select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database,
include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if
data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures
used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in
the calculation.
Targets must be 100%.
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of the
previous noncompliance, provide information on the extent to
which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one
year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding
the nature of any continuing noncompliance, improvement
activities completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures,
technical assistance, training, etc.) and any enforcement actions
that were taken.
Sampling of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in
secondary school is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a
description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design
will yield valid and reliable estimates of the target population. (See
General Instructions page 2 for additional instructions on
sampling.)
Collect data by September 2013 on students who left school
during 2011-2012, timing the data collection so that at least one
year has passed since the students left school. Include students
who dropped out during 2011-2012 or who were expected to
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 12
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
competitively employed or in some other employment they left school)] times 100.
within one year of leaving high school.
B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no
longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively
employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (#
of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and
had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other
postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no
longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left
school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other
postsecondary education or training program; or competitively
employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of
respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had
IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
return but did not return for the current school year. This includes
all youth who had an IEP in effect at the time they left school,
including those who graduated with a regular diploma or some
other credential, dropped out, or aged out.
I. Definitions
Enrolled in higher education as used in measures A, B and C
means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a
community college (two year program) or college/university (four
or more year program) for at least one complete term, at anytime
in the year since leaving high school.
Competitive employment as used in measures B and C means
that youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in
a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours
a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving
high school. This includes military employment.
Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training as used in
measure C, means youth have been enrolled on a full- or parttime basis for at least 1 complete term at any time in the year
since leaving high school in an education or training program
(e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development
program, vocational technical school which is less than a two year
program).
Some other employment as used in measure C means youth have
worked for pay or been self-employed for a period of at least 90
days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This
includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, fishing,
ranching, catering services, etc.).
II. Data Reporting
Provide the actual numbers for each of the following mutually
exclusive categories. The actual number of “leavers” who are:
1. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high
school;
2. Competitively employed within one year of leaving high school
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 13
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
(but not enrolled in higher education);
3. Enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training
program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in
higher education or competitively employed);
4. In some other employment within one year of leaving high
school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other
postsecondary education or training program, or competitively
employed).
“Leavers” should only be counted in one of the above categories,
and the categories are organized hierarchically. So, for example,
“leavers” who are enrolled in full- or part-time higher education
within one year of leaving high school should only be reported in
category 1, even if they also happen to be employed. Likewise,
“leavers” who are not enrolled in either part- or full-time higher
education, but who are competitively employed, should only be
reported under category 2, even if they happen to be enrolled in
some other postsecondary education or training program.
III. Reporting On the Measures/Indicators
Targets must be established for measures A, B, and C.
Measure A: For purposes of reporting on the
measures/indicators, please note that any youth enrolled in an
institution of higher education (that meets any definition of this
term in the HEA) within one year of leaving high school must be
reported under measure A. This could include youth who also
happen to be competitively employed, or in some other training
program; however, the key outcome we are interested in here is
enrollment in higher education.
Measure B: All youth reported under measure A should also be
reported under measure B, in addition to all youth that obtain
competitive employment within one year of leaving high school.
Measure C: All youth reported under measures A and B should
also be reported under measure C, in addition to youth that are
enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 14
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
program or in some other employment.
Describe the calculations and results using actual numbers and
compare these results to the targets. Include a description of how
the State has ensured that survey data are valid and reliable,
including how the data represent the demographics of the State.
Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
15. General supervision system (including monitoring,
complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects
noncompliance as soon as possible but in no case
later than one year from identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(B))
Data Source:
Describe the process for selecting LEAs for monitoring.
Data to be taken from State monitoring, complaints, hearings and
other general supervision system components. Indicate the
number of agencies monitored using different components of the
State’s general supervision system.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Include all findings of noncompliance regardless of the specific
level of noncompliance.
Measurement:
Targets must be 100%.
Percent of noncompliance corrected within one year of
identification:
Report on the number of findings of noncompliance made in
2011–2012 (July 1, 2011–June 30, 2012) and corrected as soon
as possible and in no case later than one year from identification.
In presenting the compliance data, disaggregate the findings by
components of the State’s general supervision system, including
monitoring (on-site visits, self-assessments, local performance
plans and annual performance reports, desk audits, data reviews)
and dispute resolution (complaints and due process hearings).
Findings must also be disaggregated by SPP/APR indicator and
other areas of noncompliance. Describe the other areas of
noncompliance.
a.
# of findings of noncompliance.
b.
# of corrections completed as soon as possible but in no
case later than one year from identification.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
States are required to use the “Indicator 15 Worksheet” to report
data for this indicator (see Attachment 1).
Provide detailed information about the correction of
noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response table for the
previous APR, including any revisions to general supervision
procedures, technical assistance provided and/or any
enforcement actions that were taken. If the State did not ensure
timely correction of the previous noncompliance, provide
information on the extent to which noncompliance was
subsequently corrected (more than one year after identification).
In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any
continuing noncompliance, improvement activities completed, and
any enforcement actions that were taken.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 15
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Provide detailed information regarding the correction of
noncompliance related to a specific indicator under the specific
indicator, e.g., correction of noncompliance related to early
childhood transition would be described under Indicator 12.
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.
16. This indicator has been deleted from the SPP/APR.
States report data on the timeliness of State
complaint decisions as part of the data they submit
under IDEA section 618.
17. This indicator has been deleted from the SPP/APR.
States report data on the timeliness of State due
process hearing decisions as part of the data they
submit under IDEA section 618.
18. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution
sessions that were resolved through resolution
session settlement agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
Data Source:
Sampling is not allowed.
Data collected under IDEA section 618.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
the target.
Measurement:
Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the
number of resolution sessions is less than 10. In a reporting
period when the number of resolution sessions reaches 10 or
greater, develop baseline, targets and improvement activities, and
report on them in the corresponding APR.
States may express their targets in a range, e.g., 75-85%.
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the
State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain.
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.
States may report on one set of improvement activities covering
Indicators 18 and 19 in cases where the improvement activities
are the same or overlap.
19. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation
agreements.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Data Source:
Sampling is not allowed.
Data collected under IDEA section 618.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 16
2014 Part B—SPP /APR
Monitoring Priorities and Indicators
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
Data Source and Measurement
Instructions for Indicators/Measurement
Measurement:
the target.
Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the
number of mediations is less than 10. In a reporting period when
the number of mediations reaches ten or greater, develop
baseline, targets and improvement activities, and report on them
in the corresponding APR.
States may express their targets in a range, e.g., 75-85%.
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the
State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain.
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.
States may report on one set of improvement activities covering
Indicators 18 and 19 in cases where the improvement activities
are the same or overlap.
20. State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan Data Source:
and Annual Performance Report) are timely and
State selected data sources, including data from State data system
accurate.
and SPP/APR
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Measurement:
State reported data, including 618 data, State Performance Plan,
and Annual Performance Reports, are:
States may, but are not required, to report data for this indicator.
OSEP will use the Indicator 20 Rubric (Attachment 2) to calculate
the State’s data for this indicator. States will have an opportunity
to review and respond to OSEP’s calculation of the State’s data.
Targets must be 100% for timeliness and accuracy.
Provide detailed information about the actions the State is taking
to ensure compliance. Describe the State’s mechanisms for
ensuring error-free, consistent, valid and reliable data and
evidence that these standards are met.
a. Submitted on or before due dates (first Wednesday in
February for child count, including race and ethnicity; and
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.
educational environments; first Wednesday in November for
exiting, discipline, personnel and dispute resolution; December
15 for assessment; May 1 for Maintenance of Effort &
Coordinated Early Intervening Services; and February 1 for
Annual Performance Reports).
b. Accurate, including covering the correct year and following the
correct measurement.
Part B SPP/APR
(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: 7/31/2015)
Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 17